With just 12 days to go until polling day, it looks – according to opinion polls in today's papers – as though we're heading for a hung parliament.

An ICM survey in the Sunday Telegraph puts the Conservatives on 35% (up two), the Liberal Democrats on 31% (up one) and Labour on 26% (down two), giving the Tories around 284 seats, Labour 232 and the Lib Dems 102.

But a ComRes poll conducted jointly for the Independent on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror has the Conservatives on 34% (down two), the Lib Dems on 29% (up two) and Labour 28% (up three).

An Ipsos Mori poll in the News of the World has the Lib Dems slipping back into third place with just 23% – the sort of figure they were recording before the TV debates boosted their ratings.

Today, the three main party leaders seek to further their respective causes in the papers. Gordon Brown tells the Independent on Sunday that the election remains wide open.

Brown refused to be drawn on the idea of his standing aside to allow a colleague such as Alan Johnson or David Miliband to be leader in a progressive coalition with the Lib Dems in the event of a hung parliament. Asked whether he felt he was bigger than his party, he replied:

No one is bigger than the party – no one, and certainly not me. [But] if you want to write about what happens after the election, you've got plenty of time to do it after the election is finished.

As long as the election is happening, we're talking about the policies. I am not talking about all these institutional arrangements that so fixate people in London.

Brown said there was some "common ground" with the Lib Dems on political reform, but added that there were also fundamental disagreements over Lib Dem plans not to replace Trident and to scrap child trust funds and tax credits.

In the Sunday Times, Nick Clegg says Labour is now increasingly "irrelevant" to the question of what happens after the election, and dismisses as "a complete nonsense" the idea that Lib Dems would prop up Brown if he won the most seats on the smallest share of the vote.

Labour is increasingly irrelevant. The question now [about what would happen] is one in which the Labour party plays no role.

The Lib Dem leader made it clear he would offer his support to "the party that has more votes and seats, but doesn't get an absolute majority", and said the Tories would be making a "major strategic error" if they turned down a deal because of their commitment to the first-past-the-post voting system.

Hopefully, Clegg will read David Cameron's interview with the Observer, in which the Tory party leader leaves open the possibility of voting reforms.

Cameron stresses his preference for first past the post because of its capacity for throwing a government out of office, but declines – four times – the opportunity to rule out voting reforms.

He accepts that he never expected to be polling in the low 30s with less than a fortnight to go to the election, but insists it is still possible to win.

I never thought it was going to be easy. I've never thought there was some sort of glide path to election success. But the campaign has been shaken up. No doubt about it ... I think it's still quite possible to win. That's what we're shooting for.

It was left to Lord Mandelson to give the catchiest soundbite of the day so far: "Flirt with Clegg and you might end up with Cameron."

The business secretary tells the Sunday Mirror, in a rather flamboyant way, that a vote for Clegg will result in Cameron as prime minister.

You might start flirting with Nick Clegg, but that way you will end up marrying David Cameron. People have got to remember the biggest number of seats that could change hands are between Tory and Labour. If they vote Lib Dem, they are making it easier for the Tories to get in.

Clegg will grace Andrew Marr's sofa on the BBC in a while. Cameron will be visiting the Labour stronghold of the north-east, just two days after telling Jeremy Paxman that the area would be in line for public spending cuts under a Conservative government.

He will also stop in Labour-dominated Kirklees, in West Yorkshire, as the venue for a speech setting out his plans to improve schools.

Brown will launch Labour's green manifesto in London as part of a bid to "up the tempo" of a campaign which has been criticised by some activists for relying too heavily on low-profile meetings with existing Labour supporters.

9.43am:Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister and the leader of the Scottish National party, is on the Andrew Marr show on the BBC.

He has mounted a legal challenge to force a fourth televised leaders' debate including the national parties in Scotland and Wales (Plaid).

Salmond said the alternative could be that a section of the debate included the SNP and Plaid so they could put forward their point of view, saying it was important to everyone on the islands that voters know what the nationalists would do in the event of a hung parliament.

He said the BBC trust turned down their appeal on Thursday night, and it was at that point that the SNP decided to take it further. "We've been incredibly reasonable about this," Salmond said.

"We haven't asked for parity with the other parties – just to be included."

9.47am: Here's more detail on the SNP's legal action. The party is aiming to raise a £50,000 fighting fund over 48 hours to pay for the action at the court of session, in Edinburgh.

It intends to lodge papers with the court on Tuesday, seeking a review of the BBC's position to "ensure that Scottish interests are properly represented".

9.54am: Apologies for the delay – technical glitch.

Nick Clegg has been on the Andrew Marr show. Earlier, he was putting flesh on Liberal Democrat immigration policies, including a "one-off" earned amnesty for illegal immigrants. I'll post more on that later.

Then he spoke on Trident, and now he's talking about the case for voting reform, which he argues is now "unavoidable". Pointing to the fact that Labour won the election on 22%, he said the current voting system is so "out of whack" it needs to be addressed, he said.

He took a pop at Cameron for assuming he was going to stroll into power, and at Brown for giving Labour the worst ratings the party has had in a long while.

Clegg said any coalition would have to factor in fairness in the tax system, transforming education and a new approach to the economy.

He said he was prepared to sit around a cabinet table with "anyone" that agrees with these core Lib Dem principles.

Marr asked Clegg about his poshness. Clegg said he agreed he had been very lucky in his privilege. Marr said he was not really an outsider, and Clegg said he never said he was.

10.08am: Earlier on, Clegg was pressed for more details about his immigration plans.

On the earned amnesty/citizenship plans, he said he couldn't tell us how many people this would involve due to the "chaos" of the system under successive Tory and Labour governments.

He said it would be a "one-off solution" adding that exit controls would be introduced so officials would know who goes in and out and a border police force introduced to tighten border controls.

On proposed regional quotas, Clegg was asked what would happen if a worker came into one region and then wanted to move to another. How could a central government stop that?

The Lib Dem leader said employers would be made liable and there would be much more stringent controls so it could be seen, from a work permit, where an individual was eligible to work.

Nick Clegg: 'Do not vote for the Liberal Democrats if you think we are advocating immediate nuclear disarmament. We are not.' Photograph: Murdo MacLeod Murdo MacLeod/Murdo MacLeod

10.24am: On Trident, Clegg said there was no suggestion of scrapping the nuclear deterrrent already in place, adding:

Do not vote for the Liberal Democrats if you think we are advocating immediate nuclear disarmament.

We are not. We are saying something much more specific. We have this Trident cold war nuclear missile system which will go on for many, many years ... you don't need to make a decision for at least another parliament about whether you renew it or not.

Marr said that, as the Lib Dems had Trident in their manifesto, they could not duck a discussion on what the alternatives would be.

Clegg pointed to the defence reviews being put forward by the Conservatives and Labour, which "irrationally" exclude Trident. Marr challenged him about the cost of Trident, which he puts at around £100bn. The cost bandied about a couple of years ago was £20bn.

Clegg begged to differ, saying the alternatives the Lib Dems had in mind could include not having a continuous sea deterrent (fewer boats).

All I'm saying is when you are at this great crossroads as a nation, as to what we spend money on and what we don't spend money on, when the threats are changing, when I agree with President Obama that the biggest threats we are going to face is terrorists with dirty bombs, why do you write in the script the one thing that is almost certainly outdated.

10.43am: Alex Salmond, who earlier was telling Andrew Marr about the Scottish National party's plan to take legal action over the exclusion of national parties from the televised debates (see 9.43), is taking part in a Scottish debate on Sky News.

Also on the platform are Jim Murphy, for Labour (Scottish minister), David Mundell, the Tory Scottish shadow secretary and Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Scotland.

Unlike the two 90-minute televised debates with the mainstream party leaders, this debate has ad breaks.

The first question is from a doctor in Glasgow, who's emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa to work as a GP, asking whether any party will give credit to hard-working immigrants when there are so many indigenous people who've never worked but get benefits.

His question sparks a debate over state efforts to get the unemployed back to work.

10.52am: More from Severin:

The immigration debate touches on the success, says Murphy, of Labour's working families tax credit; the failure, says Salmond, of successive Labour and Tory governments to tackle unemployment; the failure of the UK's immigration system to track migration and illegal immigration, says Carmichael; and the very complex state benefits system, says Mundell.

Salmond wins round of applause when he says Scotland should be proud of people like the Glasgow GP, Dr George, who have "made it what it is".

11.03am: The next question is whether an independent Scotland would have coped with the credit crunch. RBS and HBOS, two major Edinburgh-based institutions, were rescued with huge injections of Treasury money.

Severin writes:

Salmond insists there is no reason why, like Norway, an independent Scotland with North Sea oil wealth couldn't have "coped as all countries could have coped".

Murphy, Mundell and Carmichael are united on this: Scotland could never have coped without the UK as its economy is far small. Murphy says it would have "destroyed and broken an independent economic model". Iceland and Ireland's financial collapses were proof of that.

Carmichael says Salmond "has to get real about this".

Mundell raises Salmond's phrase from before the crash about the "arc of prosperity", of Iceland, Ireland, Norway, saying it is now the "arc of insolvency".

Salmond insists this is a "gospel of despair" which claims Scotland, "uniquely" of all nations, would not be able to survive.

11.15am: Now comes one of the most uncomfortable questions of all for Murphy: all four leaders are asked whether the principle of military intervention overseas and the deaths of civilians can be justified by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have they reassessed their positions on military intervention?

Carmichael gets the first response, saying the invasion of Iraq was "unforgivable" because it was "illegal and unnecessary". He becomes very angry over civilian deaths there, accusing Tony Blair of "not even having the decency to count them".

Salmond says the invasion of Iraq would not have happened with a hung parliament, insisting it is proof of the flaws in having majority governments, and implies he wants new policy on Afghanistan, where 281 British troops have died.

Mundell says a Tory government would invest greater energy in Afghanistan – "we would have a war cabinet, not a sofa cabinet" – and invest much more equipment. He accuses Labour of allowing more troops to die because of poor kit, saying: "That's shameful and, Jim, you should be ashamed about it."

Murphy agrees that mistakes were made but insists Saddam Hussein was evil: he has Kurdish friends whose families were killed by Saddam's chemical weapons.

The UN security council believed he was hiding WMDs "but we were wrong", he says. He adds, however, that "the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein".

Alex Salmond: 'On the B-list for guests, with Wayne Rooney. Photograph: David Moir/Reuters DAVID MOIR/REUTERS

Salmond points out he's on the B-list for guests, with Wayne Rooney. Mundell gets a laugh by quipping: "Wayne Rooney probably has more substantive policies for Scotland than does Alex Salmond".

Murphy says the memos were "vile, despicable and embarrassing".

Then comes the expenses scandal and devolution of powers in England: Salmond uses one of his favourite lines, saying there's no reason why the English can't govern their own affairs.

A question on unemployment leads to a spat between Murphy and Salmond – Murphy asks Salmond why he didnt' vote for a national minimum wage, "a great civilising force".

Salmond retorts that Blair and Brown failed to vote on that occasion. Murphy counters that the Commons sat late into the night against intense Tory opposition to push the measure through. He says: "The Conservatives opposed it all night and you went to your bed. Alex, you slept for Scotland."

Carmichael accuses both men of being "pitiful" by ignoring the original question about preventing a lost generation of unemployed youngsters from emerging again.

Murphy had earlier offered to talk to the mother who asked the question about helping her sons get off the dole.

Mundell claims Murphy's answer had been "typical", since he had again failed to take responsibility for unemployment.

11.45am: As the leaders talk about fuel tax rates, it's worth noting that – unless the SNP wins its legal challenge over this Thursday's BBC debate – this will be the only televised leaders' debate Salmond will take part in.

In addition to the three UK leaders' debates with Brown, Cameron and Clegg, there are three additional Scottish debates on Scottish networks. But since the Sky debate is the only one being broadcast UK-wide, it's the only one Salmond will take part in.

There were rumours that Labour were considering putting up a junior "leader" instead of Murphy as a snub to Salmond: they clearly worked out that this would go down very badly indeed.

Here's a roundup of polls out today. They emphasise the theme of a hung parliament – the findings deny all three parties the threshold 326 needed for an overall majority.

Labour: Down two points to 26%Conservatives: Up two points to 35%Liberal Democrats: Up one point to 31%

The results would translate into 284 seats for the Tories – 42 short of a Commons majority. The Lib Dems would have 103 seats, and could team up with Labour's 232 seats to narrowly form a majority coalition.

An Ispos Mori poll conducted six days ago had put the Lib Dems and the Tories jointly on 32%, but these figures put the Lib Dems more in line with its position prior to the two televised debates. Today's ratings would return Labour as the biggest party with 280 MPs, only four more than the Conservatives.

Peter Kellner, from Yougov, argues that its polling suggests the Lib Dem surge is a real worry for the Conservatives, partly because David Cameron had his sights on taking 10-20 seats from the party – something that now looks far less likely – and also because Nick Clegg's popularity is going to damage Tory prospects in Labour-Conservative marginals.

ComRes survey for the Sunday Mirror:Labour: 28%, up three pointsConservatives: 34%, down one pointLiberal Democrats: 29%, up two points.Other: 9%, down four points.

If these results were repeated at the election, the Conservatives would be 55 seats short of a majority, with 271 seats. Labour would have 254 and the Liberal Democrats 93.

The plan to "green the economy, protect the consumer and enhance the natural environment" seems an extremely broad brush. For example, point four is "give consumers a fair deal". That's surely as general as you can get.

There is a commitment to fuel poverty in there – but again, it's very vague.

The document, called A Green Future for All, is also billed as specifying new policies that will help protect the consumer and aid some of the poorest countries adjust to the low carbon transition. Its pledges include:

• Opening up the energy market to new suppliers• Creating a statutory code of consumer rights• Helping pensioners on low incomes with their energy bills• A 'national grid' of electric car charging points, helping to put an anticipated 500,000 electric cars on the road by 2020• 5,000 low carbon apprenticeships• Low carbon economic area in every region• Negotiating a shift in the EU budget towards low carbon and environmental technologies and infrastructure• Strong sustainability standards for biofuels

Speaking at an event for young supporters in London, Miliband said:

The first-time voters of today will be the ones who will live with the consequences of all of our decisions for years to come.

Tackling climate change isn't just about avoiding disaster but also ensuring we have a prosperous future and a fair one.

That's why I am proud of Labour's green manifesto. It embodies our values, creating jobs for young people, protecting the vulnerable, standing up for the many an d enshrining our commitment to fairness now and in the future.

12.22pm: Severin Carrell has sent his final instalment from the Scottish debate:

Final question: What would the panellists do to protect civil liberties in future, given ID cards, the DNA database and the growth of CCTV cameras?

Murphy in a minority here. Salmond says he shares "some" of the questioners' concerns, and goes on the attack over ID cards, which would need 49 bits of personal data. It's no solution to crime and will cost £10bn, he says.

The Scottish DNA database doesn't keep details of innocent people, as in England and Wales.

Anti-terrorism legislation has been widely abused – a point picked up by Mundell and Carmichael. Mundell says Labour's anti-terror measures are very draconian and he opposes ID cards.

Murphy insists ID cards would improve the UK's security and says scientific advances are crucial to fighting crime: 800 "murders, rapes and manslaughters" have been solved with the DNA database, he says.

Carmichael gets animated again, slapping down Murphy by pointing out that he (Carmichael) was a prosecutor in Aberdeen helping jail violent criminals while Murphy was the NUS Scotland president. He accuses Murphy of "cheap politics".

The debate ends with each leader's closing statement. Twitterati in Scotland believes Salmond won, with Carmichael – until now not widely known – seen as increasingly fiesty and combative. But neither Mundell or Murphy, very well practised at this kind of debate,fumbled badly.

12.24pm: The Conservative party has sent through images of its latest posters.

The nationwide campaign, which starts tomorrow, highlights the key changes a Conservative government would bring to Britain. You can see the four new posters here.

12.53pm: I've just been listening to Brown's speech at the green manifesto launch.

In a speech that didn't include that much on climate change but spanned a whole host of policy differences between the three parties, Brown offered a shopping list of Labour achievements before concluding:

We've come so far in our short lives, now it's up to you to ensure this country goes forward and not backwards.

So if you want a fairer Britain, vote for it. And you have to vote Labour. If you want to be sure the recovery will happen, you have to vote for us. If you want to protect jobs and the public services, our schools and our policing and our hospitals, you have to vote for it and for Labour.

If you want to stop the immoral, unfair, unjust, un-British inheritance tax cuts for the richest people in this country, you have to vote for it and you have to vote Labour.

If you want to stop cuts to the north-east and the north-west and then to every region of Britain ... you have to vote for it and for labour." And so it went on.

1.04pm: David Cameron is in the Yorkshire constituency of Batley and Spenwith his shadow schools secretary, Michael Gove, talking about education.

He says there's nothing more worrying than getting a good school place for your children. "That's what we pay our taxes for, that's what we deserve." He sets out an ideal of smaller schools with smaller classes and more discpline, in which those falling behind get extra help.

Two simple steps are needed to make that happen, he says: you need a government with the right values who put money into the right things rather than wasting it, and more trust in teachers over standards and discpline.

"I want to put the teachers back in charge of our classroom, I want the head teachers to feel the captains of their own ship," he adds.

He says he also plans to get rid of the idea of bureaucrats and those at the centre thinking they know best. He's talking to a group of parents who want to set up their own school, so it's very much a receptive audience.

1.09pm: I think this is a fitting time to pay tribute to all those who took – or are still taking – part in the London marathon.

Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, said: "It's been a fantastic day. There are 37,000 people here, which is a great tribute to the organisational powers of the London marathon. We've had a rubbish few days and weeks with the tourism in London because of this crackers no-fly zone."

One side says: Vote Clegg get Brown. The other side says: Vote Clegg get Cameron. Is is just me, or do they both seem in a bit of a tiz?

2.09pm: The home secretary, Alan Johnson, is on the BBC Politics show on the thorny issue of Labour trailing in third place in rather too many polls.

Johnson says he doesn't think the party will end up in third place. "It's very close," he adds. "It's fascinating and exciting with 11 days to go."

John Sopel asks him how he thinks the campaign is doing? Tempo too high, or too low? Johnson says the televised debates have led the campaign and he thinks the third, on the economy, is going to be a big one.

2.14pm: Johnson has just sneered that Cameron being in North Yorkshire today with his sleeves rolled up is probably the result of a two-hour focus group. Ouch. Sopel points out that Brown is in front of Labour faithful, too (see 12.53pm).

Johnson says he would understand it if Isaac voted Liberal Democrat in a Lib Dem-Tory area. But he goes on to say the Labour candidate there would be crestfallen. Well, obviously she or he would.

2.20pm: Johnson says what will be clear after this election is a very strong focus on the UK's electoral system.

It's been a no-go area for the Conservatives, Johnson – whose government has been in power for 13 years without changing the system, or trying to – says.

In fairness, he is a supporter of proportional representation. He says the Labour stance is principled, while the Liberal Democrats have so far relied on PR.

2.21pm: Sopel quotes Clegg as saying it's wrong for Labour to "squat in No 10" if it comes third in the election.

Johnson says it's interesting that suddenly people are saying it's not the seats you win but the votes you win that count. "If we get to the situation after the general election ... if you are third in the popular vote, it's much more difficult," he says. "But we want to be first."

Asked whether third place would mean a rejection of Brown's leadership, Johnson responds by saying Brown is not a PR man (he means he's not glitzy), adding that he thinks people realise the Labour leader is a man of "substance".

2.24pm: A question about cuts to frontline policing. Johnson says the plan is provide the funding to avoid cutting warranted officers or police community support officers.

"We guarantee, from the centre, the funding we provide," he said – though this was with the caveat that it is ultimately it's up to local constabularies how they spend their resources.

2.28pm: Johnson is confronted with a question about immigration increasing.

He says net migration is down, and points to the tightly-controlled points system. He nods to the Liberal Democrats' earned amnesty/citizenship plans. Sopel reminds him of the 14-year rule, which appears to be an amnesty by stealth.

Johnson criticises the Lib Dem proposal to allow illegal immigrants to work and claim jobs allowance. He admits he doesn't know how many illegal immigrants there are, but he says one is deported every six minutes.

The Sunday Times reported a figure of one million illegal immigrants in the UK. That figure was produced by Migration Watch – whose raison d'etre is to lobby for stricter immigration controls.

The questions finish. Johnson is probably concealing a sigh of relief that nothing too awkward came up.

3.00pm: I suspect many – notably the Liberal Democrats – regret the fact that Johnson has not made discernible overtures about being the Labour leader.

Johnson – who made an unsuccessful bid for the deputy leadership three years ago – is seen as part of a dream ticket with David Miliband if Gordon Brown is forced to stand down in the event of a disastrous election result.

His preference was for Alternative Vote Plus, which maintains the constituency link so voters have a local MP who is directly responsible to them. It also ensures that all votes count, irrespective of whether or not they were cast in the "safe seat" of one particular party.

Here's the full detail of what he said today, including a gentle acknowledgement that Nick Clegg may have a point with his remarks about electoral reform.

Asked to comment on the idea of Labour being in power even if they came third, he said:

It doesn't take a genius [to work out] that if you're third in the popular vote and there's a debate going on you are not best placed to deal with it. We want to be first in the popular vote.."

Jon Sopel: If you are saying that any party ... if you had been a governing party and had come third, you would have no legitimacy to carry on governing?

Johnson: This is a fascinating argument for those of us supporters of PR who, over the years, have been told it's not the popular vote that counts, it's the number of seats you win.

Suddenly, we are being told it's the popular vote that counts. Under this system, it's the number of seats you win that's very important, because people are casting their vote under the current system ... under a PR sytem, they would cast their vote in different ways.

Sopel: "This is turning on its head what you wrote last year – 'to end the perversity of the party with the most votes nationally forming the opposition rather than the government'.

Johnson: I believe that.

Sopel: Equally, it would be perverse for the party in third place to form the government?"

Johnson: I think if we get the situation after the next election, then we have to work out what's going to happen.

I think if you are the third in the popular vote, then it's much more difficult, obviously. Our aim is to be first. The point I am making is that supporters of PR have said for many years – in 1951 Labour got a record number of votes, a quarter of a million more than the Tories, but formed the opposition – and it's one of our criticisms of the system and it's just a bit galling for those who have supported first past the post to suddenly be saying how important the popular vote is.

The party claims to have approached the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – who first seemed in agreement, but then backed off – prior to sending the letter.

A Labour statement above the letter reads:

There is only one conclusion you can come to given their reluctance to have a policy-based discussion and allow a policy choice at this election.

They are scared of real debate and scrutiny. We will stick to policy and substance, as we are the party with confidence in our programme for a future fair for all.

Well, of course, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats may have all sorts of reasons for their stance – none of which will be because of the conclusion that Labour has come to.

I was struckby David Cameron's brief address to members of the Birkenshaw, Birstall and Gomersal Parents' Alliance (see 1.04pm), which was set up amid fears a shake-up will leave the area without a school, forcing pupils to travel 45 minutes to the nearest one.

Cameron said this was an example of his flagship policy of allowing parents, charities, churches and social entrepreneurs to set up independent schools within the state system – part of his "big society". He put forward one clear policy argument around education and choice in schools.

In contrast, Gordon Brown gave a much longer policy-textured speech at a 'people's mobilisation event' in west London (see 1.53pm). You can read the full text here.

It laid out five fairness tests "that go to the heart of our modern welfare society". There were lots more words packed in – but I'm not sure it was as effective as the one simple idea Cameron put across.

Cameron had cited the local decision by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors running Kirklees council to refuse a new school as a "perfect example" of why a hung parliament was bad news for the UK, and hailed the creation of a local parents' alliance (see 3.19pm).

The Press Association reported:

Cameron ducked a question about whether he would consider softening his opposition to proportional representation as part of a coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats.

Instead, he answered: "I think you can see, right here, the problems that happen when you get a coalition and a hung parliament. Who is it that is saying here that you should not have a great school? It is actually the council that is run by the Liberals and the Labour party, and the Conservatives are saying: 'We will do it for you'.

So this is a great example why hung parliaments, hung councils, they do not get things done.

You need people with the right values, the right ideas, to set people free, to give them their chance to set up a great school.

This is a perfect example of why a decisive, authoritative result would be much better for our schools, much better for our country. That is what we are fighting for every day between now and polling day.

PA reported that Balls hit back, saying:

David Cameron is telling some parents around the country they can have a new school - but he is hiding the truth from the majority of other parents that this means cutting the budgets of their children's schools, laying off teachers and cancelling new buildings.

And even worse, today in Kirklees when he promises a new school to a local parents' group and the money to set it up, he's not telling people the local community has already rejected this proposal in favour of different plans, including a new academy.

And he is concealing from local parents that the expert adviser Professor David Woods looked at these proposals and found that this new extra school could only be paid for by cutting the budgets of all the other schools in the area and undermining their education.

3.42pm: The Liberal Democrat party press office has just sent the party's views about the Labour letter to broadcasters (see 3.19pm).

Labour claimed the other parties had agreed with its concerns about the level of policy scrutiny. The Liberal Democrats, though, appear perfectly content:

We have discussed your proposal – however, we do not think that it is appropriate for political parties to seek to dictate the nature of political coverage to broadcasters.

We are pleased that because we have set out our policy priorities clearly in our manifesto and included detailed costings, broadcasters and others have been able to analyse our policy and subject it to proper scrutiny and discussion.

It might assist coverage if other parties followed suit. We would, of course, welcome further focus on policy given our clear message, focused priorities and detailed costings.

4.00pm: Scottish Labour have jumped on an article in the Sunday Mail which alleges Tory candidate Richard Cook is a member of a group that supports actors 'blacking up'.

Cook is standing in East Renfrewshire against Jim Murphy, who is currently the Scotland secretary.

The Sunday Mail reported on the comments left on the group's website:

Yesterday, Cook said the group's website was out of date and he is no longer involved. But he refused to distance himself from their stance.

• Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party leader, has given his supporters 48 hours to raise the money for a court hearing in Edinburgh on Tuesday, when he hopes to force the BBC to allow him to participate in a UK-wide election debate against Brown, Cameron and Clegg. (see 9.47am)

• The home secretary, Alan Johnson, suggests it would be "much more difficult" for a party coming third in share of the popular vote to form a government. (see 3.00pm)